Irritating Conservatives: Facts and Common Sense Thoughts Republicans Really Won’t Like

November 30, 2013 

By Allen Clifton 

 

Every once in a while I like to write an article listing a few facts Republicans really won’t like hearing.  For most, debating Republicans is a mind-numbing venture that should only be taken on by those who wish to punish themselves.
For me, I love presenting them with facts to see them try to ramble off whatever talking point they’ve been fed by Fox News and others within the right-wing media.
But it’s not just facts that Republicans seem immune to.  Common sense and logic seem to be two other traits conservatives seem completely devoid of.
So, in no particular order, here’s a few facts and common sense thoughts you can share with Republicans to drive them crazy.
Our Constitution and Health Care
In the late-1700′s, we didn’t have an organized military and required armed citizens to defend our outlying borders on a moments notice until help could arrive from the government.  The average life expectancy was also around 35 years old and a bad cut to the leg often meant amputation.  Could it possibly be that’s why the right to own guns is our Second Amendment but health care is mentioned absolutely no where?
Isn’t it a little asinine to completely base a modern society in 2013 on ideas written hundreds of years ago?  And don’t even give me “the Constitutional Amendment process.”  We will probably never see another Constitutional Amendment passed in our lifetimes.  The process for passing one, with a political environment saturated with big money and lobbyist influence, is simply not conducive to passing any kind of amendment to our Constitution.

Economic Improvement
Moving onto our economy.  We’ve gone from a point where we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month to gaining hundreds of thousands.  In fact, there are some months where the headline, “Economy Only Adds 175k Jobs” is considered bad news because the numbers didn’t beat estimates.
For those who are mathematically challenged, gaining nearly 200,000 jobs as opposed to losing 200,000 jobs is actually a great way to define economic improvement.
If you really believe our economy hasn’t drastically improved under President Obama, you’re simply living in denial.
Oh, and we can still blame Bush for the areas of our economy that are slower to improve.  Cleaning up a mess is always much harder than creating one.  When we’re still having to fix problems caused prior to January 2009, those issues didn’t suddenly become President Obama’s fault simply because Bush’s time in office ran out.
And can you people be honest with yourselves for once?  If a Republican president came into office in 2009 and created nearly 8 million jobs, presided over record stock levels, killed Osama bin Ladin and reduced our year to year deficits by their largest margins since World War II — you’d be calling him a Republican hero.
Religion
I’m a Christian and I love my faith.  If you’re a Christian that’s great too.  Faith and religion can be wonderful things in our lives.  Well, our personal lives.  Keyword being personal.  
Religion is something that’s rarely a good topic to be discussed in public because it’s something that millions of people — many within the same faith, mind you — strongly disagree on.
Which is why a strict separation of church and state is vital for government.  If you want more religion in your life, go to church more often.  Don’t try to force it into our government where it has no place.
The Media
Conservatives are right about one thing: the media is often a joke.  But it’s the conservative media that’s by far the worst.  At least MSNBC openly admits they lean left.  Fox News tries to portray itself as “Fair and Balanced” while being neither.  Then some of your biggest “voices of conservative media” are some of the most reprehensible, paranoid and disgusting people in all of the media.  People like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter.  People with next to no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I love how facts often suddenly become “liberally biased” simply because they might not support your ideology.  Take climate change, for example.  It’s amazing how not too long ago climate change was pretty much an accepted fact — until some within your party decided that something supported by the vast majority of the global scientific community wasn’t as credible as the “science” done by right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation.
And at least liberals get their news from a variety of sources.  You people only trust Fox News.  Why do you think their ratings are often higher than everyone else?  It isn’t because they’re better, it’s just because conservatives have been brainwashed not to trust anyone else.
Taxes
Whenever I talk about trickle-down economics I rarely get the sense that conservatives actually believe in it.  They do, however, seem to support the popular Republican economic theory because the “dirty America-hating liberals” oppose it.
I think it’s funny how basically every credible economic statistic since trickle-down economics was put into place in this country shows income inequality has never been greater or wider.  The rich are richer than ever before while the poor and middle class continue to fall further and further behind.
The promise of trickle-down economics is that the more the rich have, the better it will be for the rest of us.  Well, over 30 years since trickle-down economics was chosen as the scam to con millions of Americans plan usher in new economic prosperity — we’re still waiting for it to “trickle down.”
Honestly, how much richer do the top 2% need to get before we say, “You know what?  This is a load of crap.”
Then again, Fox News will never say that, so conservative voters will never believe it.

–

I’ll go ahead and cut if off there.  I think I might just make this a series because there are many more areas I would love to have covered, but the article would end up being thousands of words long.
So, maybe a “Part 2″ in the future?  I guess you’ll just have to keep an eye out and see.

Related Posts on Forward Progressives:

• Pope Francis Slams Trickle-Down Economics, Calls Out Republican Economic Policy
• 10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican
• If Republicans Would Just Get Out of the Way, Our Economy Would Be Much Better Off
• Satire Has Become Reality: Rush Limbaugh Attacks Pope Francis for Acting Like a Christian

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study

 Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study

via: Forbes

What do you do when the Congressional Research Service, the completely non-partisan arm of the Library of Congress that has been advising Congress—and only Congress—on matters of policy and law for nearly a century, produces a research study that finds absolutely no correlation between the top tax rates and economic growth, thereby destroying a key tenet of conservative economic theory?
If you are a Republican member of the United States Senate, you do everything in your power to suppress that report—particularly when it comes less than two months before a national election where your candidate is selling this very economic theory as the basis for his candidacy.
Initially released on September 14, 2012, the study—authored by Thomas Hungerford who is a specialist in public finance at the C.R.S.—correlated the historical fluctuations of the highest income tax rates and tax rates on capital gains dating back to World War II with the economic growth (or lack of the same) that followed.
The conclusion?
Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.
This paragraph from the report says it all—
“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”
These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.
Not surprisingly, the results of the study caught the attention of a great many conservatives—so much so that, according to a New York Times piece, Republican’s in the United States Senate successfully pressured the Congressional Research Service to withdraw the report shortly after it was released. The withdrawal came over the objection of the CRS economic team and the author of the study.
The Times further reports that, according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s spokesperson, Senator McConnell—along with additional GOP senators— “raised concerns about the methodology and other flaws,” adding that additional people outside of Congress were also criticizing the study.
The nature of these alleged flaws?
That the report included terms such as “the Bush tax cuts” and references to “tax cuts for the rich.”
Added Antonia Ferrier, spokesperson for the Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee, “There were a lot of problems with the report from a real, legitimate economic analysis perspective. We relayed them to C.R.S. It was a good discussion. We have a good, constructive relationship with them. Then it was pulled.”
While a spokesperson for the C.R.S. refused to comment on the discussions between the Senate Republicans and her agency, she did confirm that the report was no longer in ‘official circulation’. However, the New York Times reports that a source requesting anonymity confirmed that the decision to pull the study was done against the advice of the economics division and that the author, Mr. Hungerford, stood by the report’s findings.
On Thursday, Senate Democrats republished the study following a letter sent to the C.R.S. by the ranking Democratic tax expert in the House, Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), which reads, in part—
“I was deeply disturbed to hear that Mr. Hungerford’s report was taken down in response to political pressure from Congressional Republicans who had ideological objections to the report’s factual findings and conclusion. It would be completely inappropriate for CRS to censor one of its analysts simply because participants in the political process found his or her conclusion in conflict with their partisan position. I would like your explanation as to why this report was removed from the CRS website, who made that decision and what considerations led to it.”
For almost 100 years, the Congressional Research Service has worked to assist Congress by providing well-researched and accurate data to be utilized in the creation of important public policy.  It has done so when Congress was controlled by Democrats and when Congress has been under the control of Republicans. No matter what party was in charge, the C.R.S. has always endeavored to keep politics out of their work in the effort to provide data that would inform and advance our public policy.
Apparently, solid, well researched data no longer matters—at least not when it comes to the Congressional Republicans.

Three of the Biggest Lies Republicans Tell About Themselves

Three of the Biggest Lies Republicans Tell About Themselves

November 25, 2013 By Allen Clifton  

 

When I talk with Republicans, I often feel like I’m speaking with someone who lives inside of a bubble where the outside world and all of its realities are simply unable to penetrate.  It’s the school teacher who votes Republican despite Republicans stripping teachers unions of collective bargaining power.  It’s the individual who’s soon to rely on Medicare and Social Security, claiming they don’t need the federal government.  The person on welfare who voted for the politician who just voted to cut their benefits.
But one area where Republicans excel at is propaganda.  They’re really good at it.  They’ve successfully convinced millions of people to be absolute hypocrites, vote against their own interests and believe that giving rich people more money benefits the rest of us.
Basically, they’ve convinced people to lie to themselves.
So I decided I would give a quick rundown of three of the bigger lies Republicans perpetuate about themselves (though there are far more than three).
1) They’re fiscally conservative 
This is probably the biggest joke of them all.  It’s amazing to me that this is real platform they actually run on, yet haven’t had a Republican president who’s actually balanced the budget since President Eisenhower in the 1950′s.  Hell, their “conservative hero” Ronald Reagan came close to quadrupling the national debt during his eight years.  How exactly is someone a “beacon for fiscal responsibility” when they almost quadrupled the national debt?
And I know some conservatives will do what they always do and blame Democrats for Reagan running up our national debt.  I love reading the asinine conclusion that the near quadrupling of our debt was the fault of Tip O’Neill, not Reagan.  I hate to break it to these people, but Reagan signed off on every single piece of legislation during his eight years in office that led to the massive growth of our national debt.  Congressional Democrats couldn’t simply enact legislation without Reagan’s approval.
Then again, conservatives who make this argument clearly don’t understand how government works.  They’re also the ones who give all of the credit for our balanced  budget in the 90′s to congressional Republicans.
Then look at George W. Bush.  He took a balanced budget and completely wrecked it.  It took him one year to send us back into deficits after President Clinton gave us a surplus.  And don’t even tell me that our budget surplus should be credited to the Republicans in Congress.  If they were the primary reason why we had a balanced budget, it would have continued after Clinton left the White House, when they were still in charge of Congress — but guess what?  It didn’t.
What Bush did was cut taxes, then started two wars.  That’s like buying an $80,000 sports car just after taking a massive pay cut at work.  He reduced our revenue then increased our spending.  How again is that being “fiscally conservative”?
The only area Republicans point to for this claim of “fiscal responsibility” is their opposition to tax hikes.  But guess what?  Cutting taxes has nothing to do with being smart with money.
Oh, but they’ll cut programs that help the poor and the needy, that’ll balance our budget, right?  But you damn sure better not mention cutting oil subsidies or closing tax loopholes for the rich — Republicans will have no part in eliminating either of those.
The only place Republicans are fiscally conservative is in their minds.
2) Small government 
This is another joke.  I love how the party which actively campaigns for president on the pretense of passing Constitutional Amendments that would define traditional marriage is somehow the party of “small government.”
Or the party that continues to pass laws in Republican-controlled states attacking the right for a woman to have an abortion, requiring ultrasounds or transvaginal probes before an abortion can be performed.  That’s small government? 
Hell, if they had their way there would still be a ban on homosexuals in the military.
The fact is, Republicans love government.  Well, as long as that government is supporting something they want.  The only time they’re advocates for “small government” is when the government forces them to do things like — give people civil rights.
I live in Texas, a highly Republican state, where you can’t even buy liquor on Sunday due to outdated laws passed decades ago.  Hell, there are some counties in Texas where you still can’t buy alcohol at all.  How “small government” of them.  Isn’t Texas supposed to be a beacon for “small government values”?  Right.
The truth is, Republicans love government when they can use it to try to enforce their bigotry and ignorance, but hate government when it prevents them from enforcing their bigotry and ignorance.
3) Pro-life 
Being anti-abortion doesn’t make you “pro-life.”  Just like supporting the right for a woman to have an abortion doesn’t make you “pro-abortion.”
Republicans constantly prove that they don’t give a crap about life the moment it’s out of the womb.  Sure, they’ll use a fetus to stir up anger within people to get votes, but the fact of the matter is once that baby is born — they couldn’t care less.
The GOP has consistently cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy.  They’ve strongly stood against access to health care for all Americans.  There’s even a push now by many to privatize Medicare and Social Security so that these programs are handed over to greedy corporations that can gamble with the future of millions of Americans.
There are tens of millions of children who will have less to eat this holiday because of the Republican cuts to our nation’s SNAP program.  And if Republicans get their way, tens of billions more will be cut from the program.
In a state like Texas — where millions of its citizens go without health care — Rick Perry refused to expand Medicaid coverage so that millions of Texans could receive health care, some for the very first time.  This is a practice we’ve seen all over the country in many Republican-controlled states.
How “pro-life” of these Republicans to deny access to health care for millions of Americans who desperately need it.
And the sad fact is, Republicans only really “care” about a fetus because it helps them get votes.  Otherwise they wouldn’t oppose — and cut — funding to programs that would help millions of poor children all across the United States.
When Republicans say they’re “pro-life” all they really mean is they’re anti-abortion — that’s it.  To call Republicans “pro-life” is an absolute joke.  Because once that baby is born, they couldn’t care less what happens to it, as long as it votes Republican in 18 years.
Now of course these aren’t the only ways Republicans lie to themselves.  These are just three of the bigger “labels” they give themselves that I find completely absurd.
But I’m sure to any Republican reading this, I’m absolutely wrong.  Sure I am.  Of course, they’ve most likely never voted for a Republican president who’s balanced the budget, they probably support a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, and you can bet they support massive cuts to welfare programs that feed millions of poor children.
Like I said, it’s like they live in a delusional bubble that reality is simply unable to penetrate.

Adam Smith Father of Capitalism on Taxing the Rich

How budget showdowns could squeeze the US economy

Here we go again: What impact will Washington's budget fights have on the US economy?

 By Christopher s. Rugaber, AP Economic Writer | Associated Press

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Just as the U.S. economy is struggling to expand at a healthy pace, a pair of political standoffs threatens to slow growth and spook investors.
Unless Congress acts before Tuesday to fund federal spending, some of the government would shut down. Separately, the government will run out of money to pay its bills by late October unless Congress raises the federal borrowing cap. A 2011 fight over the borrowing cap rattled consumers, businesses and investors and likely slowed growth.
Here are questions and answers about how the two standoffs, now intertwined, could affect the economy and financial markets:

•  
• View Photo FILE - This Sept. 27, 2013 file photo, President
   Barack Obama gestures while making a statement
   regarding the budget fight in Congress and foreign
   policy challenges in the James Brady Press Briefing
   Room of the White House in Washington. Unless
   Congress acts before Tuesday to fund federal spending,
   some of the government would shut down. Separately,
   the government will run out of money to pay its
   bills by late October unless Congress raises the 
  federal borrowing cap. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)

RELATED QUOTES

Symbol	Price	Change
BAC	13.90	-0.18

Q. What exactly will happen within the next days and weeks?
A. The most urgent deadline is for Congress and the White House to agree to keep funding the government after the current budget year ends Monday. Otherwise, some of the government would have to shut down. The House and Senate are considering bills to fund the government past the deadline. But House Republicans want to cut off funding for President Barack Obama's health care law as a condition of passing the spending measure. Senate Democrats and the White House have balked. Unless one side essentially blinks, a partial shutdown of the government will occur.
Q. What would be the effect on the economy if the two sides miss the deadline for passing the spending measure?
A. About one-third of the government will shut down. About 800,000 of about 2.1 million federal employees will be sent home without pay. National parks will close. Passports and visas won't be issued. The Environmental Protection Agency, NASA and other agencies will close.
The military and other agencies involving safety and security would continue to function. These include air traffic controllers, border patrol and law enforcement officers. Social Security, Medicare and veterans' benefits payments would continue, too. New applicants might not be approved, though.
A partial shutdown that lasts no more than a few days wouldn't likely nick the economy much. But if the shutdown were to persist for two weeks or more, the economy would likely begin to slow, economists say.
Extended closures of national parks would hurt hotels, restaurants and other tourism-related businesses. Delays in processing visas for overseas visitors could interrupt trade. And the one-third of the federal workforce that lost pay would cut back on spending, thereby slowing growth.
A three-week shutdown would slow the economy's annual growth rate in the October-December quarter by up to 0.9 percentage point, Goldman Sachs estimates. If so, the growth rate next quarter would be a scant 1.6 percent, compared with the 2.5 percent that many economists now forecast.
Q. What about the federal borrowing cap? First of all, what is it?
A. It's a legal limit on how much debt the government can pile up. The government accumulates debt two ways: It borrows money from investors by issuing Treasurys. And it borrows from itself, mostly from Social Security revenue.
Q. What if Congress can't agree to raise the cap in time?
A. It could be disastrous. No longer authorized to borrow, the government would have to pay its bills only out of the revenue it gets from taxes and fees. This would force the government to immediately slash spending by 32 percent, the Bipartisan Policy Center estimates. Most analysts think the government would delay paying each day's bills until it had accumulated enough money to pay them all.
Even worse, the government could miss interest payments on Treasurys, triggering a first-ever default by the U.S. government. U.S. Treasurys are held by banks, governments and individuals worldwide. Ultimately, a prolonged default could lead to a global financial crisis.
At the same time, Social Security and other benefit payments would be delayed. Government contractors might not be paid and would likely lay off workers. Paychecks for military personnel could be delayed.
The government actually reached its borrowing limit back in May. Since then, the Treasury has taken a variety of measures to avoid exceeding it. But the cash generated by those measures will run out sometime between Oct. 22 and Oct. 31, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates.
The date isn't exact because it isn't possible to foresee precisely how much revenue the government will receive and when.
Q. Will the economy escape harm if both deadlines are met?
A. Probably. But even brinksmanship can have consequences. The last major fight over the borrowing cap, in the summer of 2011, wasn't resolved until hours before the deadline. Even though the deadline was met, Standard & Poor's issued the first-ever downgrade of long-term U.S. credit. That, in turn, led to a 635-point plunge in the Dow Jones industrial average the next day.
In August that year, consumer confidence plummeted to its lowest level since April 2009, when the economy was in recession. Spending at retail stores weakened.
"The fallout nearly caused the fragile economic recovery to stall," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics.
The International Monetary Fund estimated last month that U.S. budget disputes, like the 2011 showdown, can slow annual growth by up to 0.5 percentage point in other parts of the world.
The Government Accountability Office later estimated that just the threat of default escalated the government's borrowing costs that year by $1.3 billion, or about 0.5 percent.
The drawn-out fights can cause Americans to delay major purchases, such as for cars or appliances, says Ethan Harris, global economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. And they can erode confidence in the United States as a place to do business. Employers become less willing to expand and hire.
On Friday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and several other business groups urged Congress to fund the government and raise the borrowing limit.
"It is not in the best interest of the employers, employees or the American people to risk a government shutdown that will be economically disruptive and create even more uncertainties for the U.S. economy," the groups said.
Q. All this sounds pretty scary. Why aren't financial markets panicking?
A. Stock prices have fallen in six of the past seven days, partly because of the looming deadlines. But the price declines have been modest. Many investors likely feel they have seen this movie before and know how it ends: with another last-minute deal.
"After several rounds of fiscal brinksmanship ... markets may be somewhat desensitized to the headlines," Alec Phillips, an economist at Goldman Sachs, wrote in a note to clients.
And much has changed since August 2011. The economy has proved more resilient. Growth has remained modest but steady despite tax increases and government spending cuts that kicked in this year. Despite widespread fears, the downgrade of long-term U.S. credit in 2011 didn't cause investors to sell U.S. Treasurys and drive up interest rates and borrowing costs. Rates remained historically low.
The global economy is also in better shape now. Europe emerged from recession in the April-June quarter. Many investors may be poised to scoop up bargains if financial markets fall in response to Washington's budgetary standoffs.

Previously, "those investors who've kept their cool have been rewarded," says David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Funds.

Entitlement: RW word games to manipulate public opinion, aka propaganda. "

 Entitlement: RW word games to manipulate public opinion, aka propaganda. "

Entitlement: RW word games to manipulate public opinion, aka propaganda. "@DiegoUK: pic.twitter.com/TJNd5nVjo1 #p2 #ctl #topprog #tcot"
— Benjamin's Rush (@BenRush100) September 25, 2013

Democrats see GOP shutdown threat as opening for 2014 election gains

By Zachary A. Goldfarb

 Democrats are working hard to exploit massive unrest in the Republican Party over the looming government shutdown, which many see as one of their best chances of holding the Senate or even gaining the House in next year’s midterm elections.

White House officials and other Democrats have been content to watch in recent days as Republicans have torn into each other over strategic disputes and are in no rush to launch negotiations on how to avoid a shutdown.

Video

As Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) continues to deliver extended remarks on the Senate floor against Obamacare, here are the highlights in just three minutes.

More from PostPolitics

Ted Cruz’s indictment of the Republican Party

Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan 3:32 AM ET

Cruz had a very clear target in his marathon speech: The Republican Party.

Where Ted Cruz’s marathon speech stands in history

Aaron Blake SEP 24

A look at what when Cruz would start to enter the history books.

How popular or unpopular is Obamacare?

Glenn Kessler 3:02 AM ET

One lawmaker says Obamacare is the most unpopular law in the history of the country. Another says 59 percent support it. Huh?

Implementing Obamacare

LATEST UPDATES | What you need to know about the new health-care law as it begins to take effect.

Read more

Instead, they have attacked Republicans as reckless, pressuring them to decide whether to keep the government open with no strings attached — as Democrats favor — or shut it down.
The key to the Democratic strategy is a belief that a showdown is likely to play out similarly to the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, which turned public opinion sharply against the Republican majority.
“It wouldn’t be the worst thing for Democrats if [Republicans] tried to shut the government down,” Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state and a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said in New York on Tuesday.
“We’ve seen that movie before, and it didn’t work out so well for those so-called obstructionists,” she added.
As a result, many Democrats welcomed Tuesday’s filibuster-style floor speech by conservative Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who pledged to talk for as long as he could in an attempt to slow Democratic plans to advance a bill that would keep the government open while also funding President Obama’s signature health-care law. House Republicans voted to strip funding from Obamacare last week in exchange for keeping the government running.
The Cruz demonstration — which was opposed by many leading Senate Republicans and was set to end by Wednesday morning — plays into a Democratic strategy to try to ensure that the GOP is blamed for a shutdown if it occurs.
Congress must act by Monday night to avoid most agencies closing on Tuesday. The showdown is likely to serve as a launching point for a similarly contentious debate next month over raising the federal debt ceiling.
Looking ahead to the challenging midterm elections, Democrats see a potential political boon in the ongoing fights. Democratic candidates in some competitive races have begun to attack incumbent Republicans over the GOP effort to defund Obamacare, airing advertisements and targeting their offices with constituent calls.
“We’re going to make the case that 2014 is going to be a referendum between extremist Republicans and crisis and leaders with reasonable solutions,” said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “It does create a narrow path for us.”
But Republican strategists say Democrats are overstating the potential benefits of the showdown for their side. They say that Democrats have their own problems — particularly support for Obamacare in the face of strong public opposition. Republicans have launched their own waves of television and Web ads linking Democrats in competitive districts to the health-care law.

John Boehner Is Letting GOP Extremists Hold the Government Hostage

How could he allow the spending bill defunding Obamacare to reach the House floor? He’s not even trying to stand up to the GOP’s hostage takers—and he’s easily the worst speaker in modern history. 

 by Michael Tomasky

Here are the two questions that really matter this week as we head toward a possible government shutdown. How many Republicans in the House really would consider a shutdown as some kind of victory? And what is John Boehner prepared to do about them? Whatever the answer to the first question, the answer to the second is almost sure to be “not much.” Boehner is easily the worst House speaker in modern history. Far from being the figure of perverse sympathy that some suggest, he embodies exactly what’s wrong with the GOP—mainstream conservatism’s total capitulation to the extremists. He’s a disgrace.

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and Republican members of the House of Representatives rally after passing a bill that would prevent a government shutdown while crippling the health-care law, on September 20, 2013. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

We’ve come to expect the Big Crazy from these Republicans, so we all kind of accepted the idea Friday that the House attached the defund-Obamacare provisions to its resolution to keep funding the government. But really. Stop and think about it. It’s totally outrageous that a speaker of the House of Representatives would even allow such a measure to get to the floor. The speaker is the second–most important person in the country in terms of making the country work. He’s more important than the Senate leader because spending bills must originate in the House, and the House, which in theory is closer to the people, was always envisioned as the body that would do more to drive the nation’s legislative agenda. It’s not for nothing that the speaker of the House is third in the line of presidential succession. He’s not supposed to agree with the president, but he is supposed to agree that the government should exist and do affirmative things.

And what do we have? A speaker who has permitted 40 votes repealing a duly passed law and who then agreed to let his extremists hold the operation of the entire government hostage to its fantasies. And fantasies they are. Everyone knows that. Obamacare is not being defunded. Even Ted Cruz knows it deep down.

Imagine if the Democrats had pulled something similar in recent years. Say, if Nancy Pelosi had threatened a government shutdown over some law that had passed while George W. Bush was president and Denny Hastert was speaker. Oh, the thunderation we’d have heard! The howlers on the right would have relished bringing up nullification, comparing Pelosi and the Democrats with the South Carolinians of the 1830s. They would have loved that chance to compare Democrats with the racist kooks who drove the country to civil war. They would have had the power to create a reality in which most Americans were persuaded that Pelosi was channeling Angela Davis, threatening the FBI with furloughs and the military with deep cuts because she caved in to her caucus’s looney wing trying to refight a battle she lost legislatively when it mattered.

So we are in crazy sand up to our ribcages. A speaker with any guts at all would have said to his caucus: “You people are out of your frickin’ minds. I am not letting this hit the floor.” And that would have been the end of it. And don’t tell me a speaker can’t do that anymore. Pelosi did. You want to talk about tough speakers who knew how to keep their caucuses in line? Compared with Pelosi, Boehner really is a Nancy Boy.

A speaker with any guts at all would have said to his caucus: “You people are out of your frickin’ minds. I am not letting this hit the floor.” And that would have been the end of it.

Of course, there is a different between Pelosi’s and Boehner’s caucuses. The most left-wing Democrats in Pelosi’s caucus aren’t nearly as left wing as Boehner’s right wingers are right wing, and the House lefties didn’t come to Washington to burn anything down. So in this sense Boehner’s job has been harder. But he hasn’t even tried to stand up to the hostage takers. And that’s how extremists take over. Everyone who knows better cowers before them. Boehner has at every turn. He talks out of both sides of his mouth, making one statement to assuage mainstream opinion for every two or three he makes to placate the hard right, which just adds to the rudderlessness and weakness he conveys.

So this week, as we head toward a possible shutdown, he’s doing the same thing. And he’s going to spend the week playing games. The Senate is going to send back to the House a “clean” spending bill without the defunding of Obamacare. Boehner, being held by the nose by his wingers, is going to respond with some ridiculous counter, like dropping the defunding demand but substituting for it a plank that cancels out the fines Obamacare would impose on people who refuse to participate. White meat for the base, in lieu of red.

In the end, he will probably have to allow some kind of vote to keep the government open. Unless he can drastically alter public opinion in a week, he knows his party is going to be blamed for a shutdown, and he can’t have that. So he’ll probably let a vote happen, even if it means breaking the Hastert Rule.

That will mark the beginning of the end of his speakership. He’ll have another 14 months. If this were Hollywood, he’d give the great, noble, Jefferson Smith speech, tell his crazies where to stuff it, dedicate himself to the passage of bipartisan immigration reform, and go out with a little dignity. But it’s not Hollywood. It’s Washington. Boehner doesn’t want to make any great moral points. He wants to get the hell out of there, go to K Street, make a few million a year, and spend more time golfing. Taking moral stands can only impede that greasy path.

So Boehner will limp toward retirement. In all likelihood his legacy will be failing completely in his job as co-governor and ceding control of his caucus to extremists. And here’s the worst part: all of the above is the good news. The bad news? His successor will be far worse.

Why taxing the rich is the only answer

Why taxing the rich is the only answer